-
EMAN
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:17 pm
- Location: Minnesota
- Thanked: 1 times
"Poor health and high stress levels diminish the productivity of today's office workers. In order to maximize profits, companies need to provide white-collar employees with free exercise facilities and free wellness classes."
In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading to develop your position.
The author makes a valid claim in regard to the issues white collar workers have to deal with and suggests a solution that may help mitigate these issues that may help maximize profits. Poor health and high stress levels have definitely been prevalent in the white collar workplace as a result of the long hours people are required to put in, the constant connectivity in an era of Blackberries and IPhones, in addition to a multitude of other issues that people face while simultaneously being expected to maintain a personal and family life outside of work. It is generally recognized that exercise and wellness classes have been proven to be effective at reducing stress, however, proposing that these benefits should be offered for free is somewhat narrow minded for various reasons. The heart of the argument is that profits will be maximized if employee's stress levels are reduced and their physical health is maintained, however, implementing such a policy does not come without cost.
Considering such a decision within the context of a corporate budget, if money is spent maintaining free fitness facilities and wellness programs, there are opportunity costs and cuts that may have to be made elsewhere. Less money is arguably available for other areas such as employee compensation, disability services, legal costs and other types of expenses. If a company is experiencing particular issues with any of those areas, allocating money toward wellness programs may not be the best of use of resources.
When there is more money to be allocated to pay raises, employees have a greater incentive to work harder, put in more hours and increase productivity. Reducing stress and maintaning physical fitness certainly contributes to productivity as well, however, there is research that shows that wellness classes are not effective. The author assumes these activities contribute positively to productivity but these may be so marginal that allocating shareholder dollars to this would be fiscally irresponsible and not in the fiduciary interest of investors.
Another flawed assertion is is that to mitigate these issues and maximize profits companies have to offer wellness services for free across the board in all cases. A company could offer discounts at private fitness facilities and some free services through their Employee Assistance Programs and effectively combat stress and poor health while being able to maintain their budgets. Such a hybrid alternative may be much more appropriate for a smaller company with less money to spend.
Finally, just because something is free does not mean that people will make use of the service. If the company is offering something for free, individuals who are healthy may be using their own equipment at home to exercise. Individuals who are at healthy stress levels may not want to use the wellness services. In a private sector model, the people who need these services the most would arguably pay for them and would have more money from pay raises to effectively carry these tasks out.
All in all, the argument has some merit but to suggest all companies across the board should do this to maximize profits is illogical. The author does not consider all the ramifications of such a drastic, across the board type policy change. As noted, hybrid alternatives are much more appropriate for certain companies and can just as effectively combat the issues of stress and poor mental health while maintaining fiscal responsibility and increasing profits.
In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading to develop your position.
The author makes a valid claim in regard to the issues white collar workers have to deal with and suggests a solution that may help mitigate these issues that may help maximize profits. Poor health and high stress levels have definitely been prevalent in the white collar workplace as a result of the long hours people are required to put in, the constant connectivity in an era of Blackberries and IPhones, in addition to a multitude of other issues that people face while simultaneously being expected to maintain a personal and family life outside of work. It is generally recognized that exercise and wellness classes have been proven to be effective at reducing stress, however, proposing that these benefits should be offered for free is somewhat narrow minded for various reasons. The heart of the argument is that profits will be maximized if employee's stress levels are reduced and their physical health is maintained, however, implementing such a policy does not come without cost.
Considering such a decision within the context of a corporate budget, if money is spent maintaining free fitness facilities and wellness programs, there are opportunity costs and cuts that may have to be made elsewhere. Less money is arguably available for other areas such as employee compensation, disability services, legal costs and other types of expenses. If a company is experiencing particular issues with any of those areas, allocating money toward wellness programs may not be the best of use of resources.
When there is more money to be allocated to pay raises, employees have a greater incentive to work harder, put in more hours and increase productivity. Reducing stress and maintaning physical fitness certainly contributes to productivity as well, however, there is research that shows that wellness classes are not effective. The author assumes these activities contribute positively to productivity but these may be so marginal that allocating shareholder dollars to this would be fiscally irresponsible and not in the fiduciary interest of investors.
Another flawed assertion is is that to mitigate these issues and maximize profits companies have to offer wellness services for free across the board in all cases. A company could offer discounts at private fitness facilities and some free services through their Employee Assistance Programs and effectively combat stress and poor health while being able to maintain their budgets. Such a hybrid alternative may be much more appropriate for a smaller company with less money to spend.
Finally, just because something is free does not mean that people will make use of the service. If the company is offering something for free, individuals who are healthy may be using their own equipment at home to exercise. Individuals who are at healthy stress levels may not want to use the wellness services. In a private sector model, the people who need these services the most would arguably pay for them and would have more money from pay raises to effectively carry these tasks out.
All in all, the argument has some merit but to suggest all companies across the board should do this to maximize profits is illogical. The author does not consider all the ramifications of such a drastic, across the board type policy change. As noted, hybrid alternatives are much more appropriate for certain companies and can just as effectively combat the issues of stress and poor mental health while maintaining fiscal responsibility and increasing profits.
